The auction concluded before Apple could contact the seller.

Auctioning off Apple prototypes is tricky business. If you’re the seller, there’s always the chance that Apple will try to shut you down, and ask for the device back. The man who was selling an iPad prototype with two dock connectors suspected this when he posted his eBay auction.

“I wasn’t expecting the auction to finish. I was expecting Apple to take it down,” he told Wired.

But Apple didn't contact the seller, who spoke with us on the condition of anonymity. In fact, the seller told us he expressly conducted his auction over the Memorial Day weekend because he figured Apple employees would be enjoying the holiday, not patrolling eBay: “I knew that Apple wouldn’t be as active over the weekend, and I had a better chance of Apple not taking it down,” he said.

Apple has a storied history of reigning in people who deal in, or possess, its prototypes. An eBay auction for a MacBook Pro with a 3G antenna was stopped by Apple, and the seller later returned the hardware to Apple. And of course, the iPhone 4 prototype that Gizmodo purchased in April 2010 led to criminal charges (later dropped) against Gizmodo editor Jason Chen. Most recently, in the summer of 2011, an iPhone prototype was lost in a San Francisco bar by an Apple employee. The resulting investigation entailed Apple security searching a citizen’s home under the escort of the SFPD.

But the story of the dual-dock prototype, like its seller, is still shrouded in mystery. We reached out to him via eBay’s messaging platform, and he contacted us directly by phone from a blocked number. We still don’t know his real name, but we were able to glean some details about his sale.

The seller says he purchased the iPad prototype from a co-worker. He says he doesn’t know how the co-worker came to possess the prototype, and to protect himself and the co-worker, the seller wouldn’t share information about where he works, and what he does for a living.

“I don’t know if it was stolen from Apple, or if the person who was working with it kept it,” the seller told us. “Judging by how Apple works, it’s most likely stolen, but I’m not sure about that.”

However, the seller did tell Wired that the prototype came from an Apple lab in California. “It has identifying marks that describe which prototype it is, and those are the numbers that I’ve obscured on the auction,” he said. “With that you can track down who was using the iPad.”

The seller says that when he bought the iPad prototype from his co-worker, it was bricked: “I kind of took a chance and purchased it broken and had to repair a few things,” he told us. The seller was unable to fix the touch screen, which he noted in his sales language. Nonetheless, the ill condition of the prototype didn’t stop the auction price from pushing past $10,000 and attracting the attention of the technology press.

“I really wasn’t expecting that much,” the seller said.

When questioned about the buyer of the iPad, the seller told us: “For the privacy of the buyer, I’d really rather not share much more than he is based in the United States, and I just shipped it to him.”

The seller told us he’s sold another Apple prototype before, but wouldn’t provide details other than that the other auction didn’t garner publicity. “I can’t give much information about the Apple device without revealing who specifically I am.”

As for the eBay account that sold the dual-dock iPad, it’s registered to apps69, but the seller says it belongs to a friend. “They obviously know I’m using the account. This is not my account,” he told us.

While the seller says he doesn’t use his own account, the account apps69 has sold a variety of Apple hardware and other technology gear including various iPhones and MacBooks. None of the items that appear on the seller’s feedback ratings suggest anything more unusual than run-of-the-mill technology hardware.

The seller says he hasn’t been contacted by Apple, and doesn’t think the company will be happy to talk to him. “I’m pretty sure any contact I have with them won’t be very positive,” he said.

Wired emailed Apple about the auction, and hasn’t received comment.

So now that the seller is $10,200 richer, what does he plan to do with his money? “I plan to save it and buy a new iPhone 5 or new MacBook Pro when it comes out. It will definitely get back to Apple.”

He did not "know" it was stolen... Suspected yes, but he was careful not to verify his suspicions. Apple will probably claim that failure to ask means that he knew it was stolen. The seller even stated this according to this article. Not too bright that statement as it may come back to haunt him once Apple identifies the shipper. Also may go badly for the eBayer whose account he used.

As far as the eBay ban on selling stolen goods, all they are able to do at this point is ban the account used and cooperate with Apple in identifying the buyer. If PayPal was used to make the payment, they may be able to grab the payment...as long as the money is still accessible. There are a lot of PayPal complaints based on PayPal enforcement.

He did not "know" it was stolen... Suspected yes, but he was careful not to verify his suspicions.

Oh, come on. It was stolen. He knows it was stolen. It doesn't matter how he came about the device. The moment it was misappropriated from its intended use, it was stolen goods. The "maybe the person who was working with it kept it" argument is a very poor one.

A) they can, and absolutely will identify him - "using a friends account"? Really? - B) selling something a reasonable person would believe is stolen is in fact a crime in every state - he's flat out *admitted* as much (no, the law isn't going to make a distinction for "well, I didn't outright say it, I just said it *might* be) C) selling it (most likely) across state lines and D) for more than 10k.

I mean, honest to God, what the hell is wrong with this guy? He states he sold it over Memorial day specifically so there'd be less chance Apple would notice - and then turns around and talks to the press about it the next day! Does he really believe that now that he's sold it it's too late to do anything?

News flash - selling it just upped this to an actual felony! Congratulations!

Nothing should surprise me anymore but this one still managed to do so.

He did not "know" it was stolen... Suspected yes, but he was careful not to verify his suspicions. Apple will probably claim that failure to ask means that he knew it was stolen. The seller even stated this according to this article. Not too bright that statement as it may come back to haunt him once Apple identifies the shipper. Also may go badly for the eBayer whose account he used.

As far as the eBay ban on selling stolen goods, all they are able to do at this point is ban the account used and cooperate with Apple in identifying the buyer. If PayPal was used to make the payment, they may be able to grab the payment...as long as the money is still accessible. There are a lot of PayPal complaints based on PayPal enforcement.

He isn't using names. He isn't using his own ebay account. He suspected it is stolen. He knows he pissed off Apple. And he gets the benefit of the doubt?

He did not "know" it was stolen... Suspected yes, but he was careful not to verify his suspicions. Apple will probably claim that failure to ask means that he knew it was stolen.

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that isn't the law at all. I believe that if you have "reasonable grounds" to suspect an item is stolen, then you cannot legally sell it.

The law is all about what a "reasonable person" would suspect or do in a given situation. And as any reasonable person would a) suspect this was a stolen or misappropriated item and b) not need to take great pains to disguise their identity if they thought everything was legit, then I'm pretty sure that (at least) two crimes have been committed here by the seller.

Maybe they can bust his door down and search his place with rent-a-cops like the last time Apple lost its prototype?

This isn't the same thing, at all. This guy sold goods he believed might be stolen, publicly, for 10k. He'd have the same problems - and he's going to have problems - if he had done this with a DVD player, or a bike, or a guitar, etc.

Doubter wrote:

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that isn't the law at all. I believe that if you have "reasonable grounds" to suspect an item is stolen, then you cannot legally sell it.

The law is all about what a "reasonable person" would suspect or do in a given situation. And as any reasonable person would a) suspect this was a stolen or misappropriated item and b) not need to take great pains to disguise their identity if they thought everything was legit, then I'm pretty sure that (at least) two crimes have been committed here by the seller.

That is exactly what the laws in nearly every state (and Federal, which in this case matters because he may have sold and shipped this to someone in another state) law says - I just checked to be sure. "Reasonable person believes".

And since he knew it was an Apple prototype, and that Apple does not sell, or allow to be sold, it's prototypes - facts that he admits to knowing, in case there was any doubt - then he's screwed.

$10,000+ elevates this well past Grand Theft - a felony - in all state and federal jurisdictions. He's also liable for receiving stolen property as well. Again, this isn't some Apple-specific, "they get special treatment" set of laws here. He didn't have to personally steal it to be liable; all he had to do was both accept it and then sell it knowing that (using the reasonable person standard) it was likely stolen.

Why are some people here SO willing to ignore simple property rights simply because they hate Apple? Anybody with a functioning brain knows that Apple doesn't sell prototypes. This was stolen, pure and simple. If you have a logical reason to believe that someone was stolen, you don't have the right to buy it or sell it. That's illegal everywhere in this country. This is such an open-and-shut case of buying and receiving stolen goods that it's bizarre that some can act as though it would be unreasonable for Apple to demand it back.

Dumb criminals always get caught, right? Why didn't he say he bought it from a friend who found it in a dumpster? Then he'd be in the all clear. Sure Apple wouldn't by policy put any prototypes in the dumpster, but people make mistakes, things happen, et cetera, enough for reasonable doubt.

So I guess his bright idea to fend off lawsuits is that he said he used a "friend's" account - most likely it's his own account so when the feds come he can protect his imaginary thieving friend. So maybe he then used his own account but used public WiFi somewhere when he was posting the auction, this way the IP isn't traceable to him. Maybe he even used a public computer to do so, or a friend's laptop / phone / iPad. Then he gets the money out of the bank account in cash. Well - it might still work, I suppose.

But even if nothing sticks to him, and let's face it they won't have a 24 hour surveillance team on him for this kind of crime, there's still a very high likelihood that Apple will recover the device and he will have to return the cash.

Why are some people here SO willing to ignore simple property rights simply because they hate Apple? Anybody with a functioning brain knows that Apple doesn't sell prototypes. This was stolen, pure and simple. If you have a logical reason to believe that someone was stolen, you don't have the right to buy it or sell it. That's illegal everywhere in this country. This is such an open-and-shut case of buying and receiving stolen goods that it's bizarre that some can act as though it would be unreasonable for Apple to demand it back.

Hm? What if I found it in a dumpster? What if I bought it from somebody who told me he found it in a dumpster? What if the person selling it to me told me it was a fake? I can think of many possible defenses here, this isn't at all clear-cut. "But, Sir, I bought it off a Homeless person on the street who told me Steve Jobs had given it to him for good Karma. Sorry Sir, I am extremely gullible.".

Well apart from the fact that the guy admitted that he thought it was stolen, which was patently stupid.

Dumb criminals always get caught, right? Why didn't he say he bought it from a friend who found it in a dumpster? Then he'd be in the all clear. Sure Apple wouldn't by policy put any prototypes in the dumpster, but people make mistakes, things happen, et cetera, enough for reasonable doubt.

So I guess his bright idea to fend off lawsuits is that he said he used a "friend's" account - most likely it's his own account so when the feds come he can protect his imaginary thieving friend. So maybe he then used his own account but used public WiFi somewhere when he was posting the auction, this way the IP isn't traceable to him. Maybe he even used a public computer to do so, or a friend's laptop / phone / iPad. Then he gets the money out of the bank account in cash. Well - it might still work, I suppose.

But even if nothing sticks to him, and let's face it they won't have a 24 hour surveillance team on him for this kind of crime, there's still a very high likelihood that Apple will recover the device and he will have to return the cash.

nikster wrote:

Hm? What if I found it in a dumpster? What if I bought it from somebody who told me he found it in a dumpster? What if the person selling it to me told me it was a fake? I can think of many possible defenses here, this isn't at all clear-cut. "But, Sir, I bought it off a Homeless person on the street who told me Steve Jobs had given it to him for good Karma. Sorry Sir, I am extremely gullible.".

Well apart from the fact that the guy admitted that he thought it was stolen, which was patently stupid.

Even if he didn't admit to knowing - which he did, so it's kind of a moot point - he wouldn't be "in the clear". Say he did just "find it". The law is pretty clear on this point - it's not how he got it, it's (once again) whether a reasonable person would believe it was stolen.

If he fished a guitar out of a dumpster and sold it, and it later turned out to be stolen, he might get away with not being charged, because a reasonable person could believe that a guitar that was thrown in a dumpster was mearly thrown away, not stolen.

This, however, is an Apple prototype, clearly marked as such. He knew it was a prototype, in fact that was his main marketing push, and why he was able to fetch such a high price for it. It doesn't matter where he got it or if he just "found" it - he knew it was something valuable that Apple simply wouldn't toss away and forget about. He counted on that fact in order to get a price well above and beyond market value, particularly in this case, because it's broken! He sold a broken iPad prototype for 10k, ok, in no possible universe would he be able to walk away clean from this, I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

>> the iPhone 4 prototype that Gizmodo purchased in April 2010 led to criminal charges (later dropped) against Gizmodo editor Jason Chen. <<

It's hard to figure out exactly what the DA was thinking (let alone whether they were consulted before the search of his apartment) but my impression was that Jason Chen was never officially charged with anything. The DA released a statement that he would not be charged, but that's not the same as charges having been filed, then dropped.

Yes, once again, the secret "any publicity is good publicity" Apple Market cabal has, with the help of Ebay, the Federal Government, and possibly the U.N. executed a perfect campaign to keep Apple in the public consciousness. Because, you know, they have such a hard time doing that legitimately.

Davidstar wrote:

Who cares? It's just ancient hardware. Would be different if it was new secret stuff like a iPhone5 or similar.

It's not ancient hardware, it's felony theft, specifically receiving and selling stolen goods. "Finding" an Apple prototype and posting pictures of it, etc is one thing. Actively banking on the fact that it's a prototype to jack up the price and then sell it online is quite another.

What makes you people think he is gonna to get caught? Don't be so ready to lay down and admit defeat. The seller will not get caught. The buyer will not get caught. The friend who owned the account will not be fingered for anything. OMG it's Apple. We're all screwed. lol, get real. If it's an inside job then the persons will never be caught. For all you people know it could have been someone in Steve Cook's family. Who in the hell made this up to be something special anyway? Why should Apple even care. How many of those toys do you think they've made. This is not big news, or really any kind of news. Now something like this crap would be news, "The resulting investigation entailed Apple security searching a citizen’s home under the escort of the SFPD." That would never happen in my home and it shouldn't happen in anyone's home. Apple security be damn and the presents of the SFPD is irrelevant. Must have been some big bucks floating around.

Maybe they can bust his door down and search his place with rent-a-cops like the last time Apple lost its prototype?

This isn't the same thing, at all. This guy sold goods he believed might be stolen, publicly, for 10k. He'd have the same problems - and he's going to have problems - if he had done this with a DVD player, or a bike, or a guitar, etc.

Doubter wrote:

IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that isn't the law at all. I believe that if you have "reasonable grounds" to suspect an item is stolen, then you cannot legally sell it.

The law is all about what a "reasonable person" would suspect or do in a given situation. And as any reasonable person would a) suspect this was a stolen or misappropriated item and b) not need to take great pains to disguise their identity if they thought everything was legit, then I'm pretty sure that (at least) two crimes have been committed here by the seller.

That is exactly what the laws in nearly every state (and Federal, which in this case matters because he may have sold and shipped this to someone in another state) law says - I just checked to be sure. "Reasonable person believes".

And since he knew it was an Apple prototype, and that Apple does not sell, or allow to be sold, it's prototypes - facts that he admits to knowing, in case there was any doubt - then he's screwed.

$10,000+ elevates this well past Grand Theft - a felony - in all state and federal jurisdictions. He's also liable for receiving stolen property as well. Again, this isn't some Apple-specific, "they get special treatment" set of laws here. He didn't have to personally steal it to be liable; all he had to do was both accept it and then sell it knowing that (using the reasonable person standard) it was likely stolen.

Screwed.

I wonder how the whole "grand theft" thing works... He sold it for $10,000, but the item has no actual value because it is a prototype. If you go to the store, the closest next thing is the new iPad which is around $500 - that would not constitute for grand theft. Is it the actual value, seller's perceived value, creator's perceived value or buyer's perceived value? I would love to know how it would be decided in this case...

also...two dock connectors? Maybe apple wanted to plug the leak so they put out a few "weird" prototypes and saw which ones ended up on ebay... there's probably one with three home buttons, one with an aluminum bezel, and one with dual 3D cameras on it...

I concur though...ebay is too much heat for this sort of a sale. I don't think the guy thought that he'd be attracting that much money/attention. Wonder how much he paid his "friend" for the ipad, and whether the friend would whack him to cut the chain...

also...two dock connectors? Maybe apple wanted to plug the leak so they put out a few "weird" prototypes and saw which ones ended up on ebay... there's probably one with three home buttons, one with an aluminum bezel, and one with dual 3D cameras on it...

I concur though...ebay is too much heat for this sort of a sale. I don't think the guy thought that he'd be attracting that much money/attention. Wonder how much he paid his "friend" for the ipad, and whether the friend would whack him to cut the chain...

No they original were considering two connectors, one for each orientation. It was changed shortly before release. Also this dude is not that smart, they can track him via the payment and he is up for serious legal issues if they press it.